2020 QCCQ 12871, 2020 QCCQ 12871

Protection de la jeunesse — 209297 2020 QCCQ 12871 COURT OF QUEBEC CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF [...] TOWN OF [...] Youth Division No: 610-41-000786-186 DATE: June 2, 2020 (written judgment rendered on August 12, 2020) ______________________________________________________________________ BY THE HONOURABLE PEGGY WAROLIN J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF: X , born on [...], 2004 [SOCIAL WORKER 1], in her quality of authorized person by the Director of Youth Protection of the Centre intégré de santé et de services sociaux A, having a place of business at [...] Applicant and A, residing and domiciled at [...] Mother ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] The Director of Youth Protection (DYP) asks the Court to review and prolong a decision rendered on September 24, 2019, regarding the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004.

At that date the Court declared the security and development still endangered and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre for a nine-month period. [ 2 ] The DYP submits that the situation does not allow to return the youth to his mother and that the placement in a rehabilitation centre has to be prolonged for nine months. Position of the parties [ 3 ] The mother is present, but does not wish to be represented.

She recognizes that the security and development of her child are still endangered, but she disagrees with the suggested measures and asks that her son be entrusted back under his grandparents’ care. [ 4 ] The youth is present and represented by Me Meunier. He recognizes that his security and development are still endangered, but disagree with the rehabilitation centre placement and asks to be entrusted to his grandparents or to a foster family. History of the Situation [ 5 ] On November 24, 2016 , X was assessed by a psychologist. He was 12 years old.

The specialist confirmed the attentional and academic difficulties X experienced for several years.

The professional recommended: - Supportive counselling to address X’s grief surrounding the loss of his father, if possible offered by a familiar worker with inclusion of psychoeducation on grief; - Using of assistive technology to facilitate his learning; - Consultation with a doctor or pediatrician to further investigate a possible ADHD; - A speech-language assessment; - For the transition to high school, he should be directed toward classes at the applied level, specifically those that are technical and hands-on of terms of instruction and assignment expectations. [ 6 ] On April 19, 2018 , the Court was seized with an application for provisional measure and entrusted the child to his maternal grandparents. [ 7 ] On June 27, 2018 , the Court was seized with an application for protection.

X was 13 and half years old. X and his siblings were known from the DYP as they were the object of decisions rendered by the Youth Chamber and measures of protection were applied until May 2013. The father passed away in 2015. The DYP received reports regarding difficulties for the mother to fulfill the child’s

basic needs and schooling. She was also involved in a violent relationship and surrounded by people known to be alcohol and drug users. X had important learning difficulties and followed an adapted program to facilitate his schooling. After being entrusted to his grandparents, his school attendance improved. Unfortunately, he started consuming drugs and alcohol. The youth was waiting to be assessed by a speech therapist as the mother did not sign the consent. The grandparents were very involved in the situation of X and his siblings.

The Court declared the security and development of the child endangered and entrusted him to his maternal grandparents.

The Court also ordered that he receive the health care services he needed (notably speech-language assessment, personal follow-up for grieving and follow-up with a pediatrician) and withdrawn certain attributes of parental authority from the mother and granted it to the grandparents, the whole for a period of 18 months. [ 8 ] On August 5, 2019 , the Court rendered a provisional measure and entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre. [ 9 ] On August 22, 2019 , X was seen by the pediatrician, Dr. Perreault, because of his questionable behaviours (speaking alone, laughing for nothing, impulsivity).

The specialist suspected a possible fetal exposition to alcohol and also note an important drug and alcohol consumption. Because of his opposition behaviour and non-attendance at school, he was suspended and during his free time he consumed more and more. He failed his school year. The youth considered having ADHD. The specialist indicated a few checking to be done in the following months, notably an evaluation from a child psychiatrist. [ 10 ] On September 24, 2019 , the Court revised the situation. The mother had an important drugs consumption issues and she was not involved in the child’s life.

X stopped going to school and spent his days sleeping or playing video games. The grandparents were tired about the situation and X not respecting their authority. X refused to receive help for the grief about his father. The Court entrusted the adolescent to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months and ordered that he receive health care services notably a speech- language assessment and a follow-up with the pediatrician and the child psychiatrist.

Facts [ 11 ] Since the last decision, the adolescent had to be transferred to an intensive unit in City A to insure his safety and the safety of the others. [ 12 ] He was seen by the child psychiatrist. [ 13 ] By the middle of May 2020, he was transferred back to a regular unit and he is doing well generally.

The supervision is adapted to ensure a transition between the intensive unit and the regular one. [ 14 ] He was supposed to be seen by an addiction counsellor working for the Centre A, but this organization refused to see him considering that his need is to completely quit the consumption and not only to reduce it or to control it, which is not in the mandate of this organization. [ 15 ] The DYP worker understand well the adolescent’s desire to be entrusted to a foster family, but as for now, no foster family trained to answer his needs is available.

Because of his mental health issues, he cannot go to a regular foster family. Even outside of the region, there is no such a foster family. Moreover, it would be beneficial for him if he is entrusted to a foster family close to his family members. [ 16 ] X recently started a new medication, and it is too recent to see the beneficial effect of this new one. He also needs to receive an individual and constant supervision from an educator. [ 17 ] The best would be for sure a placement at the grandparents' place. The grandmother testified. She deeply loves her grandson, and she is very concerned by his well-being.

But as the DYP worker, the grandmother knows that X’s needs are important and she has to protect her other grandchildren entrusted to her. [ 18 ] As for now, the DYP worker recommends that he remain at the rehabilitation centre to make sure he had adequately learn the tools and to be sure that his impulsivity is under control. After that, the best option would be a placement at the grandparents’ place. For that they will need a certain training to know more about X’s needs. [ 19 ] The mother is not really involved in her child’s life.

She went to see him sometimes with the grandparents. [ 20 ] Under the medical recommendations, X did not attend school. According to the child psychiatrist, X was not receptive enough and the schooling would not be beneficial for him currently. Analysis [ 21 ] X’s difficulties are very important and for now, he needs very specific services.

For sure the situation improved since the last order, but those changes are too recent to be sure that this improvement will be maintained. [ 22 ] It would be too prejudicial for X and for his family to reintegrate him too early. [ 23 ] The grandparents deeply love him and wish the best for him.

For sure they would like to have him at home, but they do not want to experience the same difficulties they lived before and they want to ensure X’s siblings’ safety. [ 24 ] That being said, they are the best persons to receive their grandson when the situation will be stable enough to think about a return in a family environment. To do so, they will have to receive a specific training, and after hearing the grandmother’s testimony, the Court is not convinced that she understands well what this training is.

She will need more information about that. [ 25 ] After receiving the appropriate explanations, if the grandparents do not feel comfortable to participate to this training, the DYP will have to actively look for a foster family.

[ 26 ] The contacts between X and his family members are important and beneficial for him. The Court will encourage and authorize such contacts.

FOR THOSE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 27 ] GRANTS the application; [ 28 ] DECLARES that the security and development of the adolescent X, born on [...], 2004, are still endangered; [ 29 ] ENTRUSTS the youth to a rehabilitation centre for a period of nine months, with a reintegration at his grandparents’ place or with a foster family if the situation allows it; [ 30 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to explain to the grandparents, the possibility for them to receive a specific training to answer X’s needs; [ 31 ] If the grandparents refuse to receive such training, ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to actively look for a foster family; [ 32 ] ORDERS that a person working for an institution or body, provide aid, counselling and assistance to the youth and the family; [ 33 ] AUTHORIZES access for a few days at the grandparents’ place or in a foster family; [ 34 ] ORDERS that the frequency, duration and modalities of the contacts between the youth and the mother are determined by the Director of Youth Protection, including the presence of a third party if necessary; [ 35 ] ORDERS that the youth and the mother take an active

part in the application of any of the measures ordered by the Court; [ 36 ] ORDERS that the mother seek for a drug addiction evaluation and follow the recommendations of the professional; [ 37 ] ORDERS that the mother report at regular intervals, to the Director of Youth Protection to inform him of the current situation; [ 38 ] ORDERS that the youth receive services from a psychologist for his addiction issues, as long as deemed necessary by the professional; [ 39 ] ORDERS that the youth continue his medical follow-up with the pediatrician as well as the pedopsychiatrist and that he respect the recommendations; [ 40 ] AUTHORIZES the exchange of information between all professionals implicated in the family’s life to put an end to the situation in which the security and development of the youth are endangered; [ 41 ] ORDERS the Director of Youth Protection to file the birth certificate in the court file; [ 42 ] ORDERS any police body to collaborate for the execution of the measures; [ 43 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the youth X , to the Director of Youth Protection for the execution of this order; [ 44 ] THE WHOLE for a period of nine months. __________________________________ PEGGY WAROLIN , J.C.Q.

Me Flore Tardif, attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Antoine Meunier, attorney for the child Date of hearing: June 2, 2020